Skip to main content

Full text of "Flora Indica Vol-I"

See other formats

FLORA INDICIA.                                    233
fructum multiloculareni coalita; stigmatibus sessilibus, linearibus, ra-
diantibus, appendiculatis v. inappendiculatis. Ovttla pauca r. plurima
anatropa, per totam cavitatem sparsa, rarius 2-3 sutura clorsali inserta.
CarpeUa pauca, libera, v. plurinaa in baccam multilocularem polysper-
mam putredine dehiscentein mediante toro coalita, carpellis rarius dorso
obscure dehiscentibus. Semina libera v. in pericarpii pulpa immersa,
arillata v. exarillata; testa coriacea Crustacea v. subossea, scabra v.,
leevi; tegmine membranaceo ; albumen farinaceum y. subcarnosum, axi
plerumque canale percursum. JBm&ryo orthotropus, sacculo nuclei in-
clusus, albuminis cavitate prope hilura semi-immersus; cotyledonibw
crassis, plerumque intus cavis, plumulam fbventibus; radicula brevi.—
Herbae aguatica^ rhizomate eras90 prostrate folia et scapos raritt* ramos
foliiferos etjlori/eros gerente, foHis natmtibux peltatis kastatis corda-
tisve rarius demersis seclisque? petiolo stipulate v. exttipulato, pedunculis
extra-axill&ribus, floribus nata^ibwnuptiisjperactispUruinque demersis.
The true-position of this Order we believe to be between Berleridea and Papa-
eeracea, as far as this can be shown in a linear series. Before proceeding to discuss
its affinities, it is necessary to enter into the conflicting statemeats and opinions of
some able botanists who have studied its organization and relationship.
Brown long ago announced it as his opinion (' Flinders' Voyage,' ii. 598, and lat-
terly, Plant. Jav. Kar. 108), that the Cabombca are only a section of IfympJueapea,
a conclusion in which he has been followed by none, though Asa Gray (Gen. Plants
United States, i. 91) has, under the former Order, recorded his adhesion to this opi-
nion, and we know it to be Bentham's also; and, after a very careful examination of
The Orders Nyinphaac&f, C&botnbces and Nelw&bi&ceas have long been considered
as forming one group or alliance; which has been called Nymphaa* by Salisbury
(Ann. Bot ii. 70), Hydropeltidece by Battling, VitelUgera byMartius, Nympfueinea
by Brongniart, Nymphales by Xindley, Chlamydollastece by Adrien de Jussieu, Ne-
Ivmbia by Endlicher, and Nymph#oide<E by Meuuer (including in the lost two cases
the Sarraceniacea).
It is useful to quote these terms, for they show how uniformly all systematic bo*
tanists have regarded the altianceta natural Much difference of opinion has, how-
ever; existed, as to whether its members should be referred to Monocotyledons or to
Dicotyledons, and very recently an eminent botanist and accomplished anatomist has
endeavoured to prove that it should be divided, Nelvmbiacea being retained in Dico-
tyledons, and Nywifhaacefs peraaps referred to Endogens.
It is not necessary to do more than allude to the opinions of some of the earlier
botanists, of whom Csesalpinius, Magnolias, and Bernard de Jassieu referred Nywpkaea
to Papaveracea ; or of their followers, who, being ignorant of the structure and de-
velopment of the embryo and young plant, were led away by analogies, and classed
Nymphaa with IXydrocharidea and other Monocotyledons ; such were Gscrtner, A
L. Jussien, Claude Eichard, and J. St. Hilaire: their views have been discussed at
length by De Candolle and others. Of the modern systematic authors who have stu-
died the subject we believe that the following consider the place ofNympfa* to be
where we retain it—Arnott, Brown, Brongniart, Bartling, Bentham, De Candolle,
JBndlicher, Asa Gray, A. de Jussieu, Meisner, Salisbury, Spach, Wight; those who
incline to consider it Monocotyledouous are lindley, and perhaps Plaiichon; Trecul,
who discusses tho question in an anatomical and physiological point of view only,
* For the dates and relative merits of these names see Planchon's excellent * Etudes
BUT lea N/rspheaeeV (Ann. Sc. Nat. scr. 8. xix. 17), which contains by very far the
best systematic account of the Order that has hitherto appeared.